欺骗投资人8年，这家AI独角兽破产了

Core Viewpoint - The rise and fall of Builder.ai exemplifies the dangers of narrative-driven investment in the AI sector, where the allure of technology often overshadows the reality of business practices and financial integrity [3][12]. Group 1: Company Background - Builder.ai was founded in 2016 by Sachin Dev Duggal, an engineer with a notable background, including early achievements in technology and entrepreneurship [4]. - The company initially positioned itself as a low-code development platform aimed at small and medium enterprises, promoting an AI assistant named "Natasha" as its technological core [5]. - Builder.ai attracted significant investment, including a $29.5 million Series A round led by SoftBank in 2018, and later secured $195 million in Series B funding in 2022 [6]. Group 2: Financial Misconduct - In 2024, internal audits revealed that Builder.ai had inflated its 2023 revenue by 20%-25%, leading to a drastic reduction in its 2024 revenue forecast from $220 million to $55 million [7]. - The company faced severe financial distress, culminating in its bankruptcy declaration in May 2025, with outstanding debts of $850 million to Amazon and $300 million to Microsoft [8]. - Allegations surfaced that Builder.ai had been misrepresenting its financial performance for years, with former employees claiming that the company had inflated sales figures by over 300% [8][9]. Group 3: Industry Implications - Builder.ai's collapse highlights a broader issue within the AI investment landscape, where the hype surrounding AI technologies often leads to a lack of due diligence among investors [12]. - The case draws parallels to other high-profile frauds in the tech industry, such as Theranos and Wirecard, indicating a pattern of misleading narratives attracting significant capital [10][11]. - The rapid growth of AI funding, which increased by 470% from 2020 to 2024, contrasts sharply with the low commercialization success rate of only 9%, suggesting a disconnect between investment enthusiasm and actual technological viability [12].